Bush's Iraq-Afghan farewell tour marred by dissent

[Walsingham]

This is exactly my opinion. I'm not saying that US foreign politics is to blame for every death in Iraq since the invasion, and not that nothing good has come out of it. But declaring war to the left and to the right without caring about the consequences is irresponsible. A pity there's no one who can ask the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are dead now if they are happy that their country is "liberated".

 

Not that it invalidates your point, but the most extravangant case for casualties doesn't say several hundred thousands.

 

Which actually reminds me of something I found interesting. The anti-war lobby said hundreds of thousands would die. When they didn't die, no-one hounded them.

 

The point now, is to my mind that the administration has (eventually) seen a transition to a freely elected democratic Iraq. It's not perfect but it has happened quicker than Germany transitioned from the Reich. Is that something to be ashamed of? If clinton, for example, had been president would we now face the same situation?

 

Further point: according to Duncan Anderson (historian I had handy) some 300,000 Frenchmen died due to Allied attack in the liberation of France. Who can ask them if they are happy?

[Walsingham]

Journalist beaten while in custody.

 

 

I think the least that should happen is a formal complaint by our governments. If true, this is a disgrace to all concerned. The perpetrators should be severely disciplined.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I don't think it's proved yet that his injuries happened later. Bush's press secretary suffered a black eye too, does that mean she was beaten up?

Edited December 19, 2008 by Wrath of Dagon

[Killian Kalthorne]

But what is a ton of people?

 

Well, a ton is 2000 pounds and the average adult human should be at most 180 pounds, so a tone of people should be around 10 to 11 people, at most 12, unless they are the typical American then that can be as low as 6 to 7 people.

[taks]

Which actually reminds me of something I found interesting. The anti-war lobby said hundreds of thousands would die. When they didn't die, no-one hounded them.

they're still trying to include every single death over the last several years as a result of the occupation. fudge the numbers as a last resort when the numbers don't fit your beliefs.

 

It's not perfect but it has happened quicker than Germany transitioned from the Reich.

oh yeah, japan, too. those occupations both took a lot longer. of course, both germany and japan were more of a threat outside their borders than iraq is (they were simply more powerful), so it's not a surprise that they would take longer to calm down.

 

taks

[Nick_i_am]

Can someone explain the term 'strawman' so that I can understand Taks' posts.

 

I'm serious! Last time I asked I got three different versions and now i've forgotten them all, and google just gave me porn. Creepy creepy porn.

[Walsingham]

I think a strawman is when you give an example to someone's argument which no-one can reasonably agree with. For example, saying that private healthcare means your grandmother expiring silently in the snow outside a private clinic, while rich people spit on her.

[Walsingham]

Further point: according to Duncan Anderson (historian I had handy) some 300,000 Frenchmen died due to Allied attack in the liberation of France. Who can ask them if they are happy?

 

I just realised this is an asinine question. They are French.

[taks]

Can someone explain the term 'strawman' so that I can understand Taks' posts.

a strawman is best explained as a different argument than one originally made, presumably one that is easier to attack than the original. it is probably the most common mistake made, either intentionally or unintentionally.

 

the term derives from "constructing a strawman to tear it down" sort of arguments in which the straw argument is indeed refuted, but the original argument is left alone. there are a variety of ways to "construct a strawman." one could, for example, completely mis-characterize what his opponent has said. by doing so, he ends up debating a different argument altogether. another way would be to generalize someone's statement beyond his original intent (which is what awesomeness did, though i think unwittingly). taking something out of context is another strawman argument.

 

strawman.

 

taks

[Nick_i_am]

Thanks, the term seems to get thrown around a lot and I never really understood why.

 

they don't care, in general, as it makes the US look bad. in fact, by and large, they support such actions. yeah, those are better countries to be running the world and i'm racist for disagreeing.

 

The problem is that both my country and yours and others have done very similar things in past years. Just look at the 'subtle' funding of Afgan freedom fighters back when russia invaded or the mess with china duing the Korean war. Hell, i'm not expecting any country to be perfect, and i'm not saying the current 'world leaders' are even that bad, but looking at even current situations like gutanamo bay, extreme rendition or our own 'hold without trial' laws makes me think about how, in the end, we're all very similar being that we're all human and that that's more important than race/culture will ever be.

 

My grandfather spent his life as a soldier yet he says that he never saw as many people die as he did duing the 'releasing' of India and Pakistan fron british rule and the massacre that followed. We ****ed up, big time, and diplomatically and 'personally' pakistan is still pissed. Yet, you don't see people ranting about it dispite the fact that it's still having an effect on world politics.

What i'm saying is that, while i've never really been a fan of Bush I agree with Taks in that he gets far too much personal blame from people who don't seem to really understand what they're blaming him for.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Nick_i_am

[taks]

hehr, we helped saddam rise to power in the first place and definitely helped him against the iranians. it will never end, of that i am certain.

 

taks

[Rostere]

Not that it invalidates your point, but the most extravangant case for casualties doesn't say several hundred thousands.

 

Which actually reminds me of something I found interesting. The anti-war lobby said hundreds of thousands would die. When they didn't die, no-one hounded them.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

 

Further point: according to Duncan Anderson (historian I had handy) some 300,000 Frenchmen died due to Allied attack in the liberation of France. Who can ask them if they are happy?

 

I've never seen an estimate of the total number of French civilian casualties exceed 300000, and that is for the entire war. I'd be very surprised if 300000 of those died in the months it took the Allies to free France (since that's what I think you mean with "the Liberation of France").

 

While I do believe it is true that people do not always know their own best, I don't think it is right to bring war to a country in the way that happened in Iraq. I am willing to bet that no single person on this forum would sacrifice the lives of their own friends and relatives against their will. War is a bad and simple- minded solution to problems, a solution which is likely to have repercussions more dire than the original problem.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The actual war against Saddam had relatively low casualties. The real violence took place due to terrorism afterwards, which was largely unexpected and was where the miscalculation took place. US certainly didn't intend for all those poeple to die, but such are the uintended consequences of war. Had the result been known, I believe most people involved would've decided on a different course of action, or at least would've handled things very differently. Was it worth it? I don't think any one person can judge, we have to leave it to the judgment of history.

[Volourn]

"War is a bad and simple-minded solution to problems, a solution which is likely to have repercussions more dire than the original problem."

 

War is bad; but it's not always the most simple mindle solution either and it is just as likely to improve situations that existed pre war. I think most Amerikans/settlers felt their lives were better off after the War of Independence. And, I'm sure most blacks were better off after the Civil War as well. And, that's just two wars on Amerikan soil. No doubt German Jews felt safer in Germany after WW2 was done. And, I'm sure Kuwait was fine and dandy afterthe US/UN went to war on their behalf.

 

Its simple minded, imo, to claim that war is simple minded or is considered the easy way out. In fact, appeasment or ignoring problems is the easy way out. Of course, ideally, problems would always be solved without war; but sadly the world isn't Happy Happy Land of Laughing Lollipops.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Volourn

[Walsingham]

Bush's greatest crime in teh eyes of the world has been to point out the essential bollocks which makes everyone feel snug at night: that good intentions are enough to effect change. If you believe in democracy and essential quality of human life, then you want to extend it. If you try to extend it you will run into people who are against you, and they aren't going to change by any means short of a punch in the snout. Because you can ignore strongly worded letter to the UN, but you can't ignore a pencil stuck in your eye.

[Xard]

The actual war against Saddam had relatively low casualties. The real violence took place due to terrorism afterwards, which was largely unexpected and was where the miscalculation took place. US certainly didn't intend for all those poeple to die, but such are the uintended consequences of war. Had the result been known, I believe most people involved would've decided on a different course of action, or at least would've handled things very differently. Was it worth it? I don't think any one person can judge, we have to leave it to the judgment of history.

 

Well, the U.S has catastrophical record with laundry after messing the clothes. Iraq catastrophy could've been averted (or at least weakened) by more capable leaders and decisions. Easily.

 

Anyway, I find Afghanistan to be far more interesting currently. Allies are losing war there and they can't afford to lose it. Yet with things going on like this they will, just like soviets, russians (earlier in history) and british lost. Afghanistan has been burial ground for troops of any superpower and it certainly looks like nothing has changed. And not even Obama is willing to leave Afghanistan

Edited December 20, 2008 by Xard

[Xard]

Bush's greatest crime in teh eyes of the world has been to point out the essential bollocks which makes everyone feel snug at night: that good intentions are enough to effect change. If you believe in democracy and essential quality of human life, then you want to extend it. If you try to extend it you will run into people who are against you, and they aren't going to change by any means short of a punch in the snout. Because you can ignore strongly worded letter to the UN, but you can't ignore a pencil stuck in your eye.

 

yeah, Gandhi sure did bad job

[Walsingham]

If Ghandi had tried his tricks with almost any other colonial power he'd have just been locked up or worse. Fortunately, while the British Empire was not very shiny, it had patches of awkward nobility on occasion. But more importantly, if you are dealing witha democracy you can argue and effect change. But i am not talking about making democracies change. I am talking about making vicious totalitarian fethwads change.

[Xard]

If Ghandi had tried his tricks with almost any other colonial power he'd have just been locked up or worse. Fortunately, while the British Empire was not very shiny, it had patches of awkward nobility on occasion. But more importantly, if you are dealing witha democracy you can argue and effect change. But i am not talking about making democracies change. I am talking about making vicious totalitarian fethwads change.

 

"any other colonial power"?

 

British were good guys in many aspects when compared to french, who could be complete ****. But I think Germany et al followed more british way than french way... who knows

 

point taken

[Walsingham]

Actually, I should be very careful even suggesting we were great. I'd like to clarify and say that the manifold bad bits don't negate the rarer good.

 

My point was merely that, courageous as Ghandi was he only got away with it because we didn't apply the simple 'cure' of random violence. If you want to see what it looks like when people try non-violent means against someone who IS violent, just look at the poor bloody Zimbabweans.

[Xard]

Actually, I should be very careful even suggesting we were great. I'd like to clarify and say that the manifold bad bits don't negate the rarer good.

 

Well, I've been reading history of imperialism lately and British Empire actually was quite decent for gigantic empire. You guys did do a lot of good things too.

 

French guys where the ****

[Rostere]

War is bad; but it's not always the most simple mindle solution either and it is just as likely to improve situations that existed pre war. I think most Amerikans/settlers felt their lives were better off after the War of Independence. And, I'm sure most blacks were better off after the Civil War as well. And, that's just two wars on Amerikan soil. No doubt German Jews felt safer in Germany after WW2 was done. And, I'm sure Kuwait was fine and dandy afterthe US/UN went to war on their behalf.

 

The American war of independence is an interesting counterexample, but the important difference between that and the invasion of Iraq is (like you say yourself) that the former was started by the American people on their own soil. I would not at all have argued against helping Iraqi rebels overthrow Saddam's regime. The problem was just that there was no unified rebel movement, which in turn led to the civil war- like state after the US invasion.

 

It's a little bit like the notion of the government helping private companies with money. Why throw away money at a company that can't fend for itself in a free market? The solution is of course to first see to it that the company will be able to help itself. In a similar way the US should have secured popular support first, so that the people of Iraq could begin to establish a democracy themselves. Instead, already being the most resented country throughout the Middle East (except Israel), they go in and shoot everyone who makes armed resistance, and expect "Happy Happy Land of Laughing Lollipops" as soon as Saddam is put to justice. The Bush government's plan for Iraq was absurd. And it doesn't contribute to making things better that US troops lack the kind of legitimacy needed for rudimentary peacekeeping operations.

 

Someone should have asked themselves the questions: "How come Saddam has not been overthrown yet?", "Who, and where are the rebels?", "How can you, under these circumstances, build a stable democratic nation?" Instead, someone picks up the club and goes to bash some heads, without a thought regarding the delicate balance of order that is about to be tipped, costing hundreds of thousands of men, women and children their lives.

 

The situation has hardly been improved since before the war. It will eventually, though. But if you're considering this whole business from a long-term perspective there are other ways to reach the same ends. The cost for the war has this far been over 550 billion dollars, and that's only for the US. With economical backing of that amplitude, there would have been other ways to resolve the situation without the incomprehensible (really) loss of human life the war has caused.

[Walsingham]

Unless I've misunderstood your point (something I do occasionally), you're contradicting yourself. You're suggesting we should have supported an internal civil war. I would suggest:

 

1. Saddam was bloody good at fighting internal threats

2. Saddam had committed genocide in an attempt to avoid a civil war

3. In what way is a civil war 'better'? Civil wars are long, bloody, and utterly without any restraint or conventions. They are fought by amateurs with all the horrors that that entails.

4. By contrast the US coalition did a magnificent job of fighting Saddam conventionally in a very short time, with what one can only conclude was as small a cost in lives as possible.

5. This conventional fighting was soured by post-war errors, which resulted in a level of violence which is less than a civil war, but by its own lights betrays just how bloody a real civil war could be.

[Wrath of Dagon]

US only shot at people who were shooting at them. For Saddam to be removed, no other solution would've worked. It's true we messed up by letting the situation get out of control right after the invasion, sure we get the blame for it, but it's not like anyone really knows the exact correct way to replace a government in a hostile country.

[Calax]

US only shot at people who were shooting at them. For Saddam to be removed, no other solution would've worked. It's true we messed up by letting the situation get out of control right after the invasion, sure we get the blame for it, but it's not like anyone really knows the exact correct way to replace a government in a hostile country.

to say that the US only shot at people who were shooting at us is absurd when you think about it, if we did we'd have to have enough armor to stop the bullet and still keep right on running to steamroll the enemy. While that particular ROE is highly touted as what is active, I sincerely doubt that the military kept to it as generally the guy who shoots first wins.